Maybe they're trying to save him from himself, from lapsing into a life of dark hatred that will only eat his soul
Adding to what @BLING said, the shop initially had no objection to the design of the cake. They only refused after learning what it was meant to celebrate: Colorado baker fighting ruling over gender transition cake Judge Timothy Schutz noted Phillips’ wife initially told Scardina the bakery could make the cake before Scardina volunteered that the design was meant to celebrate her gender transition. If you can't articulate why a particular design is objectionable on its face, without relying on extrinsic facts about on who is buying it or for what purpose, a compelled speech claim seems very weak. Ultimately, it reduces to the reality that it's the person you're objecting to, not the design or anything you're supposedly "saying" through the design.
I wouldn’t even say they’ve lost those battles LEGALLY. Almost certainly morally/culturally. But legally there is plenty of ambiguity or outright areas where the LGBTQ do NOT have their equal rights protected at the federal level. If they did, all of these baker and gay marriage cases would be clear and without ambiguity. It’s kind of the last frontier of civil rights after the white “god fearing” male was forced to cede legal equality to women and racial minorities.
Maybe you are driving across a predominantly white state and no restaurant will serve you and no hotel will host you. And the UF football team might have some players who can stay at a hotel and others who cannot. That’s ok? A town could collectively refuse to serve minorities. I’m guessing you are not a minority- who still experience higher mortgage rates and lower wages in same situations. Private businesses were forced decades ago to integrate and normalizing bigotry as the price for perceived entrepreneurial opportunities isn’t much of a trade for minorities. And how about a “free society” including the right of all to public spaces (and businesses that serve the public are public). We as a society have rejected discrimination and lawmakers codified it. What does "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" really mean? - All the above is muddled by “free speech “ in this case. Different question than the general principle of a society refusing to permit bigotry in businesses open to the public.
Then I wouldn't have said a word until I got my blue and pink cake, paid for it and was walking out the door with it. Then I would have yelled what it was for and laughed.
Plenty of people "fight hard" in impact litigation like this to make a name for themselves and profit off their fame. To cake guy's credit, though, it looks like he is still in business. That's more than we can say for the football coach who has joined the full-time grift circuit and seemingly has no interest in returning to his job.
He is still in business because enough people in his town are willing to spend their money at his business despite his stance. And that's how it should be be. Other bakers in that town should run ads stating they will bake anything for anybody.
I'd bake the cake but not only would it taste like shit but I'm sure there would be at least one or two off color jokes involved in the decorations.
You make a good point, especially about being unable to change someone's mind via a lawsuit. BTW, reasonable people can differ, and can usually find mutual respect and common ground.
Bigotry would be refusing to serve people. Not refusing CONTENT based on the free exercise of ones faith. If this cake has no content, I would bake it, but if it has anything pointing towards its purpose than I support the baker again. Again this guy serves everyone. That was brought to light previously. He does however limit content. All of those trying to draw the racial comparison ignore the fact that if content isnt protected, then he would have to bake a KKK cake or a Nazi cake too if a customer demanded.
That would be closer to analogous if they were asking the baker in this situation to write an affirmative message on the cake. To offer a different hypothetical, if a Christian asked an atheist baker to make a blue cake and noted that to him, the color blue represents the glory of God, would the atheist baker have a legal argument to refuse service simply because he is aware of the customer's intent in choosing that color?
I think content is the key. If there is no content., I'd bake the cake. And call it a twin brother/sister cake on all the documentation.
There is no other explanation. I’m looking forward to reading about a suit that this baker refuses to bake a pedophile cake in a few years.
Can these people force an artist (pastry expert) to paint words on the food? Seems that they can get their cake an write their own words on it... I am sure he offered a blank cake once before.
I could parse that second part out a bit because I'm not sure if there would be a need to create documentation that isn't truthful. But generally, that seems like a pretty reasonable place where someone could draw the line.
